OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,555
- Points
- 1,260
Vern did you say I'm old? 51 going on 15 here...
"The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"
- Thread starter PhilB
- Start date
ArmyVern said:
What testing has been done on the various boots that Supply will purchase for those with foot problems or who cannot get boots that fit?
I just went through this process as the issue hot weather boots were too wide for me, especially at the heel, but the next smaller width was too small. They sent me into Angus yesterday to try Magnums and SWATs. I'm guessing that the selection will vary from base to base depending on what boot merchant is handiest and what said boot merchant carries.
Either there is or is not an official list of approved boots for those of us who occasionally require special sizing. If there is, what is the difference between that and what individuals could/should be able to purchase and wear? If there is not, obviously one is not really necessary for official approval at some level.
I picked the Magnums over the SWATs for both fit and comfort, by the way. The Bates M9 Desert Assault boots that I bought earlier are even better on both counts, but what I'm getting courtesy of Her Royal Majesty are certainly acceptable at the cost to me.
On a related note, I took back the a** f**ce steel-toed cold wet weather boots at the same time, as their fit is not acceptable and they are so stiff that, even after three weeks of wear in Wainwright late March - early April I still could not walk properly in the field and my feet continued to hurt for three weeks after I ceased wearing them in favour of a pair of Magnums purchased from the SYT at the Wainwright kitshop. Supply gave me a pair of the Army ones instead, which fit much better and seem far better to walk about in. I generally avoid kit with a** f**ce in the name in favour of the Army equivalent, and this reinforced that custom.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
TB has authorized the purchase of civ footwear only (ask Pet about the fallout they got from NDHQ, the TB, and the Auditor General with their bulk purchase of civ footwear for an entire TF outside of the regulations) for pers with medical problems & those who do not fit into stocked sizes.Loachman said:
Regarding specs: Cbt Boots: Black, unlined, leather, black stitching, mid-calf. Nothing to test.
Safety Boots: Must be CSA approved (to meet Mil Specs) and further must be black, leather, mid-calf;
Desert Boots: Tan, mid-calf. Unlined. Nothing to test.
Desert Safety Boots: Must be CSA approved (to meet Mil Specs) and further must be tan, mid-calf.
Specialty Boots: IE blast boots: (ie PPE): Foot must be molded & boot then custom ordered off the "Special Sizing Roll" and made for the individual by the contractor, vice purchased off the rack.
Simply put, it's quite easy to determine which footwear is IAW Mil Specs when the mil specs are "CSA" standards. That's pretty difficult to find as "already CSA approved" on things like plates, body armour etc - even IF CSA ratings were what's applicable to that equipment, but it's not CSA ratings that are applicable in those cases.
Loachman said:
Do you see the difference now between boots (IAW with the specs above) and let's say ... BPVs? Plates?
There is not an approved list of footwear from civ suppliers ... then again the specs for our footwear have just been given to you above and it's pretty easy for the Suppy paying the bill to determine if the style you chose is "black, leather, mid-calf" (& IAW CSA ratings in the case of safety boots). I have refused to pay for the boots members picked out -- and sent them back to the store to try again when they came in with a US model number for safety footwear ... no CSA approval rating IAW mil specs = no taxpayer paying for the item on your behalf. There is a vast difference between an item that requires "CSA" approval (for safety boots) in order to purchase, and one that must be certified with blast testing etc by a federal entity as a piece of kit that is deemed PPE - such as is the case with the blast boots.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
Well really I don't see anything except Snr Officers/RSM's etc stopping us from PAYING for and then WEARING our own boots.
If the government wants to keep buying and paying for stuff that alot of us aren't going to wear thats fine, give it to the reserves, the people that don't have the money to buy their own kit/have no interest.
I guess it gets more complicated with rigs/PPE but anything can be solved if we really want it.
If the government wants to keep buying and paying for stuff that alot of us aren't going to wear thats fine, give it to the reserves, the people that don't have the money to buy their own kit/have no interest.
I guess it gets more complicated with rigs/PPE but anything can be solved if we really want it.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,555
- Points
- 1,260
popnfresh, a lot of the PRes people do buy their own boots. As long as they are black and are combat boot style, I'm good with that.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
OldSolduer said:
I know as I am one of them. I just find it funny that this sort of thing is even an issue in reg force deploying units. The army needs to start issuing some common sense.
RHFC_piper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
popnfresh said:
They do... but it's war stock only...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
popnfresh said:
My RQ shop once had "Common Sense" on the shelves... But, as there was an ATI coming up and he had to account for all the "Common Sense", hence he would not issue said "Common Sense" to the troops. After the ATI he discovered that Common Sense (known as SENSE, COMMON A1) was not on the scale of issue of my P Res unit, and so... He sent it all back.
We have a new RQ now. At least in that shop, there is common sense to be had, talked about and on occasion, issued.
EDIT TO FIX SPELLING
RHFC_piper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I was once issued common sense... but the spring was worn out and the follower was broken, which caused a lot of double feeds, so it was pretty useless. I tagged it as NS and turned it in. They gave me Brute Force and Ignorance (BFI) as a replacement.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,225
- Points
- 1,160
Loachman said:
Now don't go dissing puttees! Standard issue in the British Army up to 1985. No good in the wet, of course, but awesome in rocky, desert mountainous regions. The Omanis I worked with would trade just about anything for a pair as the boots lasted for ages and the puttees gave great ankle support on crummy terrain while keeping the dirt out your boots (especially during long scree descents). Luckily I was an army cadet in Canada in the 70s, so I knew how to wrap them properly
Whoa! Is that Fred and Barney already? Gotta make my car pool to the quarry....
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,225
- Points
- 1,160
Danjanou said:
Bloody spies....
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Teeps74 said:
What kills me about the ignorance of this post is that:
YOUR RQ (no, not even your old one) does NOT decide what you can or can not wear in YOUR Unit; your CO does that -- with great input from the RSM.
Suprisingly ... apparently the ignorance of some still sees the "lack of common sense" put onto the Supply Tech. What, pray tell, in my last few posts did your NOT understand about it is NOT the Supply Tech - it's the damn law. It's not even the CF. It's the damn law.
If you want to insult the government system - that's one thing, but I, for one, am sick and f'n tired of people like you who can NOT seem to grasp the concept of putting the blame where it lies; not on tradepeople who can do SFA about government policy.
The CF DID try to get a boot allowance - the government said "no" (I've already said that here a few posts ago), so further comments of "it's simple to fix if we want to" are also bullshit. I already told you how it needs to be fixed - and that's an act of Parliament ... I wasn't joking.
Take your slams of Supply Techs and shove them, for the ignorance is not on them; it may certainly be on a few of them, but then ... I can point out of few of "those types" right here in this very thread as well.
Have a great night.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ArmyVern, two things you should remember about my post... First, it was an attempt at humour... I figured that since "Common Sense" does not have any sort of serial, stock, or tracking number, this much would be apparent. Another is, that most P Res units (in Ontario at least) do not have supply techs as the RQs, and more often then not they are actually just someone (prefereably a senior NCO) who needs a full time job, and is willing to do it regardless of trade.
If you want to take it personally, fine... I apologize. It was not directed at supply techs, whom if you scroll through the pages of this very thread, you would find I have very deep respect for. Sometimes however, sorry is not enough, but you should know, I shant be beating myself up for trying to put a smile on a face or two.
(Oh, and it is not urban legend... We have had RQs and CQs in the past who would not issue kit, because it was easier to track on the shelves... It has happened, and it is worth poking a lil fun at that.)
Oh, and where did I talk about boots?
Next time I will try to remember the smiley face.
If you want to take it personally, fine... I apologize. It was not directed at supply techs, whom if you scroll through the pages of this very thread, you would find I have very deep respect for. Sometimes however, sorry is not enough, but you should know, I shant be beating myself up for trying to put a smile on a face or two.
(Oh, and it is not urban legend... We have had RQs and CQs in the past who would not issue kit, because it was easier to track on the shelves... It has happened, and it is worth poking a lil fun at that.)
Oh, and where did I talk about boots?
Next time I will try to remember the smiley face.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Teeps74 said:
My bad. Two responses to two posts rolled into one, but I only quoted yours.
The bit about the boots etc was to popnfresh who made this statement:
As I said, it is complicated. It's been tried with the boots and the answer was a firm "no". We have really tried over and over and over again. And, it's been more than Sup Techs trying ... but it is the law that we get to comply with. It's not like we haven't tried (ie it's not like we don't have any common sense either). You just all need to convince your local politicians of that "requirement for common sense to be made available to DND/CF" by that Act of Parliament.
